Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 22, Spring 2006
May 8, 2006

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Laura Campo (clerk), Ryan Stinnett, Simon Doyle, Arianne Urus, Andrew Koller, Brandon Mack, Jacqui Cacan, Jonathan Jackson, Tara Grigg (observing)

Ombuds:
Risa Gordon

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower-level natural sciences course accusing Student A of submitting an exam for a re-grade after the exam had been altered in an attempt to regain undeserved points.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of accusation
• Student A’s written statement
• Course syllabus
• Deposition from the course professor
• Deposition from another professor in the department
• Course syllabus
• Copy of Student A’s graded exam before re-grade request
• Copy of Student A’s exam as submitted for re-grading
• Exam key from course website

Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”

Testimony:
Student A opened by saying that when she submitted her exam for a re-grade, she changed some minor things on one problem to better illustrate what she had meant by her original answer.  She believed the changes to be cosmetic, and that the actual answer itself was the same, just represented in a different way.  Student A claimed that she pled in violation because she broke the rule in the syllabus that states that students should not write anything new or erase anything old on their exams before submitting them for a re-grade, but she said that she did not submit an altered exam in the attempt to regain undeserved points.

Council members noted that the Honor Code policy in the class (found in the course syllabus) clearly states that if students desire a re-grade, they should not write anything new on their exam or erase anything old.  Student A responded that she was aware of this policy, but did not think that altering her exam was a big deal because she hadn’t significantly changed her answer, only made it easier for the professor to see what she had intended in her original answer.

Council members also noted that both the professor of the course in question and another professor in the same department wrote that the changes to Student A’s answer were significant and that the altered answer would receive full credit, whereas the original answer only received 1/8 credit.  Student A responded that she did not think that the changes were substantial at the time that she made them and that she had not consulted the answer key before submitting the exam for a re-grade.  Student A also pointed out that the changed answer was still not exactly the same as the answer listed on the professor’s key.

When asked why she had changed her answer if she believed it to be correct in the first place, Student A again stated that she was not trying to get points that she did not deserve, but just wanted to make it clear what her original answer meant.

Student A closed by stating that the violation was not premeditated and reiterating that she had not intended to cheat and that her altered answer was simply to emphasize what she had meant by her original answer.

Verdict Deliberations:
In their initial impressions, Council members agreed that a violation had occurred since Student A had altered her exam before submitting it for a re-grade, an action which is clearly prohibited by the exam re-grade policy outlined in the course syllabus.  Members also noted that substantial changes were made to the exam, which would warrant full credit on the problem as opposed to the 1/8 credit originally given. 

Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In Violation?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0

Straw polls #1 and #2 were made binding.

Penalty Deliberations:
In opening penalty deliberations, Council members first considered the nature of the violation.  Members pointed out that Student A was aware of the re-grade policy as stated in the course syllabus, but claimed that her changes were not substantial.  One member stated that they believed that Student A was being truthful and that the violation was not very severe.  However, other members responded by saying that the depositions of both professors contradicted Student A’s testimony that her changes were simply cosmetic.  Members also noted that the exam re-grade policy was made extremely clear in the syllabus and that having a re-grade policy puts a lot of trust in students to not alter their answers to get credit they do not deserve.  By changing her answer, Student A violated this trust and put her classmates at a disadvantage since the course is graded on a curve.  It was pointed out that the exam in question was worth 1/6 of Student A’s course grade, and that changing one question on this exam would probably not significantly affect her overall course grade.  Most members said that if they mitigated on nature, it would be only slight mitigation.

Next, the Council considered Student A’s cooperation.  Student A did make a plea of “in violation”, but whether or not the plea was made in good faith was called into question.  Several members agreed that Student A had  pled “in violation” to altering her exam, but not “in violation” to making the alterations to gain undeserved points. These members felt Student A was not admitting to the full extent of the violation.  At least one member also believed that Student A was not being entirely truthful when she said she had not seen the answer key before submitting her exam for a re-grade because she referenced the correct answer (according to the key) in her cover letter explaining to the professor why she believed she should receive more points.

Next, the Council considered aggravating circumstances, including deceit of the council and/or false disclosure and an attempt to conceal the violation.  A member again stated that they believed Student A lied when she claimed she had not seen the answer key before submitting her exam for a re-grade.  Council members also pointed out that Student A made no attempt to tell the professor that she had changed her answer at all, even if she believed what she had changed did not make a difference in her answer.  Also, the cover letter was written in blue pen, but the changes to the exam were made in pencil that matched the original writing on the exam.  This indicated to some Council members that Student A might have tried to conceal the violation from the professor.  Some members pointed out that Student A had also repeatedly stated that the changes she made to her answer were cosmetic, not substantial.  This claim was refuted by both depositions of professors, and some Council members felt as if Student A was trying to make the violation seem less severe than it actually was.

Straw Poll #3:  What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in course & 2 semester suspension:              4
F in course & 1 semester suspension:              2
F in course:                                                      2 + 1 observing
2 and 2/3 letter grade reduction in course:     1
Abstentions:                                                    0

The member who voted for 2-2/3 letter grade reduction voiced their opinion that Student A did not gain a lot by altering her exam and that it would not make a big difference in her overall course grade.  Members who voted for suspension cited the fact that the course is graded on a curve, meaning that other students in the course were put at a disadvantage because of Student A’s actions.  They also said that they believed that  Student A’s attempt to conceal the violation from the professor and from the Council – which are both aggravating circumstances - outweighs any mitigation on nature of the violation, and that Student A was aware that she was violating the course’s re-grade policy when she submitted her re-grade request.  Several members voiced their intentions aggravate more heavily and therefore move to harsher penalties based on these arguments.

Straw Poll #4:  What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in course & 2 semester suspension:              6
F in course & 1 semester suspension:              2 + 1 observing
F in course:                                                      1
2 and 2/3 letter grade reduction in course:     0
Abstentions:                                                    0

The Council has reached its required 2/3 majority but discussed further to strive for unanimity.  All members reiterated their opinions and did not feel the need to change their penalty decision.  Straw poll #4 was made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that she receive an F in the course and 2 semester suspension from Rice.  A prior violation flag is also attached to her record.

Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 1 hour, 14 minutes.

Respectfully submitted,
Laura Campo
Clerk